More detail on what clothes feel like could make life easier for shoppers – and save retailers money
- Written by Cathrine Jansson-Boyd, Professor of Consumer Psychology, Anglia Ruskin University
Clothing is one of the top categories in online sales worldwide, with expected revenues of more than US$920 billion (£702 billion) this year. And for clothing businesses, like many others, online retail opens the door to a wider customer base.
While there are clear benefits to selling clothing online[1], many businesses find their return rates are high. This can be as much as one in every five[2] items, which is costly for businesses.
There is also the environmental cost[3] of returns, both from increased transport emissions and wasted packaging. Some returned items even end up in landfill.
Sizing issues[4] are a commonly cited reason for returns – but there are also other key elements. These include the lack of touch and the fact that a consumer can only know what the item feels like after they’ve bought it.
Touch can influence how consumers evaluate products[5] – unsurprisingly, a shopper’s preferred textures tend to generate more positive reactions. Touching the garments can also instil confidence in the quality of the product[6].
And of course, clothing comes into contact with our largest organ, the skin. So it seems logical that tactile input should help to forge the relationship[7] people have with their clothes. The skin is packed with nerve endings, which give people detailed information about what they are wearing.
Some items might be a joy to wear, while others may feel itchy or restrictive – so much so that they might never be worn again. Through touch, consumers gain formative impressions of garments, which shape perceptions of luxury or cheapness, for example.
But online, consumers can’t touch products before buying. They have to wait for them to arrive before determining whether they satisfy this tactile impression. If it’s a no, the item is likely to be returned.
Even though there is no true substitute for real-life touch, there are things retailers can do to appeal to consumers’ tactile sense.
Verbal (using voiceover or video on the website) and written descriptions[8] of tactile properties can help to compensate for not actually touching the garment. But words can be subjective – when relying on them, retailers need to be specific. Generic wording such as “soft” or “hard” is not ideal. Instead, it is better for retailers to be more specific, perhaps using phrases like “soft as a feather”.
When attributes like fabric and fit are clearly described, it can help consumers to recall past experiences with similar clothing. This in turn can affect how the consumer perceives the quality of the item, overcoming uncertainty[9] and making them more likely to buy[10].
Even observing another person touching a product[12], in a video on the website, for example, can help a potential buyer to connect with the item so that it generates a perception of ownership. This “psychological ownership” is known to make consumers evaluate the product more favourably[13] – and makes them more likely to buy.
If a consumer has a high need for touch (and lots of people do) it can help if they can imagine touching the product even though they are only seeing it online. Strong visual touch cues can subconsciously nudge a shopper to do this.
Similar to real-life touch, so-called “imagine touching” is known to alter[14] consumer perception. “Imagine touching” clothing can help a would-be buyer to judge its quality and aesthetic value.
To help with this, retailers can provide clear visuals with close-ups and zoomable images so that the consumer can clearly see the surface of the fabric. It may also help if consumers can see how the fabric moves. The more information the retail site can provide about the material, the more likely it is to reproduce a sensorial situation akin to how a customer would experience in-store shopping.
When online retailers try to make up for the lack of tactile cues, this can help consumers to make better decisions – and ultimately make them less likely to send their purchases back. This should be a win-win for both the consumer and the retailer.
References
- ^ selling clothing online (theconversation.com)
- ^ one in every five (www.statista.com)
- ^ environmental cost (theconversation.com)
- ^ Sizing issues (www.bbc.co.uk)
- ^ evaluate products (psycnet.apa.org)
- ^ quality of the product (www.sciencedirect.com)
- ^ forge the relationship (www.torrossa.com)
- ^ written descriptions (www.emerald.com)
- ^ overcoming uncertainty (onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
- ^ more likely to buy (openurl.ebsco.com)
- ^ paikong/Shutterstock (www.shutterstock.com)
- ^ touching a product (onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
- ^ product more favourably (academic.oup.com)
- ^ known to alter (www.sciencedirect.com)
